Healers

While the post in shout outs was definitely out of place, its a very real issue.

Look at healers.

There are two kinds.

Group 1: Newbies. NonPkers.

Group 2: Outcasts

We didn't have this problem in 1.0 or 2.0.

Healers didn't feel the need to pk, why?

Now, healers are less powerful, except when on the offensive. Yea, they were given dispel evil and the ability to be lag-free while dealing damage, but that's not defensive power...its offensive. They made the class more offensively capable, in exchange for things which -made- the class.

Now, healers are board. Who the **** wants a resurrection? They don't mean ****. Healers don't even have viable RP anymore because resurrection doesn't do **** and they can't actually return lives unless the very very rare occurence of a mobdeath happens.

Why were healers made offensive, then their rp taken away from them, wasn't this expected?

Whoever the original poster of this was, you have totally 100% misunderstood the healer guild. Entirely. Perserving life is not debatable. Healers are -all- pacifist against nonundeads, that IS the foundation of the class. I have played more healers than most people in the game, but I do realize healers have been screwed over recently.

Healer rp is shot by the modifications to resurrection.

Healer mechanics(mystic healing) are shot by the same change.

Resurrection needs to be made real again. Make it take back every death. Then...healer was FUN, because when someone died...you suited up for battle...you went in, you fought the guy who was, no doubt, guarding his corpse...watching for healers...and you chased him away! You got the resurrection, you perserved life...and sometimes you fell...which made even greater RP than getting the resurrection.

Now, however, healers serve no real purpose to the game. They are boring and do nothing but horde EQ. I will admit it, but that doesn't mean its right. Healers need to serve a purpose again...

Oh, and I did NOT make the post in shout outs.

I, in fact, disagreed with almost everything said.

The nature of healer role play is CLEARLY open for debate. These suggestions are meant to IMPROVE the role play of the game; thus far, all I've seen is immortals telling people how they should play their own characters. I will repost.

The subject at hand here that concerns me is limited versatility. There’s one thing that’s been bunging me for a long time, and that is the stereotyping of the healer class role play. I will debate that the healer class, while limited in ways like all others, is far too restricted by terrible clichés.

“Preserve Life”; this is the –most- debatable subject. How players translate the different religions means everything here. I’ll list a few examples of the life religions, and ideas as to how they can be played, though most of them are currently outcast-worthy.

Purity: if I were a healer following purity, I would kill every evil-doer I could to preserve and protect the lives of the millions and millions of innocents elsewhere. (If there is a man pointing a gun at my mom’s head, I am going to kill him to save my mother’s life). Or, if I were a healer following purity, I would kill every undead so that living things could preside over everything 100%, and kill every demon to end their suffering.

Compassion: if I were a healer following compassion, I would kill every evil-doer to display a simple form of justice (eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth) in hopes that they will abandon their evil ways by becoming wise with discipline, preserving lives in the end (I will execute the man that killed a citizen’s family to help teach the world the difference between right and wrong, and the consequences of ending life – I’m NOT going to sit back and allow that man the opportunity to continue threatening the existence of life). Or, if I were a healer following compassion, I would kill every undead or demon to end their suffering and help preserve life in the end. Or, if I were a healer following compassion, I would try to love my enemies and convince them diplomatically that they should change their ways, even if that means convincing them to cause turmoil without killing people.

Tranquility: if I were a healer following tranquility, I would likely, if wise, never attack anyone or anything, respecting the existence of all things, living and dead.

Note that peoples’ healer role play wouldn’t have to be limited to these ideas, but then that doesn’t matter really, does it? The cliché that healers cannot be aggressive in any way is very poorly backed, as I hope to prove by the above ideas. I say, broaden the possibilities. Right now, it shouldn’t be possible for a healer to join –any- cabal active in war, when taking into consideration the warnings from immortals, which is exactly why a majority of the healers join Herald. They can’t safely engage the mud in any other way.

I’ll list further notes, one such being that healers are not obligated to resurrect anyone, and like doctors of today, are rewarded for healing. Wouldn’t it be logical to say that if a Healer were greedy, that he or she would LIKE people to be sick so that they could reap the rewards? Couldn’t a healer charge money for resurrections? If not, why not? I’m just tossing ideas to the wind here.

I do not believe that healers should become what they are in expectation that they will be the next revolutionaries, facing off with demon gods, resurrecting ancient memories, etc. They should be able to be humble servants or self-righteous bastards, fighting for the bigger picture, or the smaller picture. Healer's shouldn’t be limited to be shallow-minded because immortals threaten to outcast them because the immortals keep getting complaints from the healers' opposing cabal members.

Example: “Oh no, I got my *** kicked by a healer! I thought I could sit around and do nothing, because the immortals prevent healers from being aggressive, but –NO-! I’m pissed off that I lost; all I have to do is bitch!” Immortals get tired of hearing complaints, and warn the healer, limiting the healer’s fun by a whole truck load. What’s the healer to do then? Sit by his cabal guard sucking his thumb, healing everything around him that gets attacked by gangs that are aware of the healer’s warnings?

I think the point it fairly clear. Healers should be allowed to defend their ideas and goals before immortals jump on them and threaten to outcast them, following some archaic “tradition”. Be open-minded while at the same time, of course, preventing absurdity or excessiveness, etc. There are outcasted healers everywhere because all it takes for an immortal to outcast them is a few whines from players that got pursued. Players feel too safe attacking healers, thinking that if they start to lose, all they have to do is recall, or wait for the healer to gate because they know the healer isn’t allowed to pursue or kill. Healers should be able to preserve their own life, as well as others, even if that means killing the person trying to break into their cabal to kill people, killing the person breaking into a guild, killing a person breaking into a clan hall; The list goes on.

I honestly hope that this is thoroughly thought about.

Note that I am not asking for skills, spells, or other abilities to be changed. I am asking for healers to have the right to versatility by virtue of VARRIED RELIGIONS. Otherwise, why choose religion at all for role play purposes?

Also, this has NOTHING to do with player killing. If people want to play healers they way they were, they are completely entitled to do so; nothing is preventing them from playing a 1.0/2.0 style healer. However, as I displayed above, there are logical, in-character reasons for why healers would be aggressive in some ways.

Whoever the original poster of this was, you have totally 100% misunderstood the healer guild. Entirely. Perserving life is not debatable. Healers are -all- pacifist against nonundeads, that IS the foundation of the class. I have played more healers than most people in the game, but I do realize healers have been screwed over recently.

No, I understand that RP fully, it's fine. I think it's great. However, I am against limiting the class in that way, simply because there are HUNDREDS of reasons (again, logical reasons) for a healer to chose to go a different way, most of them based on religion. Read the suggestions on religion. Preserving life is an entirely debateable subject, and I'm more than willing to debate on it.

Maybe I'm confused about something, but if someone attacks a healer, is the healer allowed to kill the attacker?

I think a healer should be allowed, through in game and in character reasons, to defend himself or herself until he/she or the attacker dies. A healer can value his or her own life by fighting back, or gating away. Right now, all they can do is gate away without getting punished.

If you want to play a char you can agressively pk with roll a cleric.

If you are attacked as a healer you may kill the attacker. Their bad if they don't flee. A healer should not initiate combat with a non-undead.

And there aren't -any- other logical reasons for a healer to pursue an attacker? I already offered my analogies. Don't tell me I'm wrong. Tell me why my reasons are wrong (if at all).

You are wrong because a healer is not to be an aggressor.

Period.

Thus, your reasons are wrong. Healers forsake being an aggressor when they CHOOSE to follow that path. It's not tradition, it's the way of a healer.

And if the IMPs say it's not open for debate, it's not open for debate. Healer RP is one of the few bedrock solid, set in stone RP ultimatums in this game. It would be the same as a druid deciding to go kill trees.

For the powers they've been giving which no other class has, they forsake aggression toward the living.

EDIT: In fact, I'll put this another way. You can debate healer RP until you all are blue in the face and your fingers bruise from typing. If we, the IMPs, state that healer RP and its limitations are set in stone, that is reality, and all the debate in the world doesn't change that. So debate away.

I've always been of the impression that healers should be totally passive. I haven't played one since Teurlain(Royal elf healer 1.0) got outcasted and no spells for attacking Crypts FG warrior when he showed the then queen of Shaserazade her head from a sack.

That being the case, why are healers allowed in cabals that wage war on other cabals? How do you RP a Knight Healer or Savant Healer(don't get me started on Tribunal Healers) and how do you do a good job as far as the cabal goes? Is your mission in life only to keep your cabalmates alive, wage army warfare and retrieve standards? Are you supposed to defend the cabal when it's attacked? To me that's aggressively PK'ing and the cabal lifestyle and healer lifestyle as I see it just don't mix.

I know if I ever play one again I won't attack anyone, killing attackers is totally different and I'll actually even help my groupmates when they rank instead of just sanc and heal. This may be a bit much with the smallish playerbase and few undead/vampire/lich types we normally have online but perhaps make them a remort class so every Tom, Dick and Harry can't have a healer and not play them the way the staff wishes them played? Or, make it an application style qclass instead of a convert style(as if the staff doesn't already have 1000 apps to look over) but that way if some level 30 cleric is too aggressive or shaky on the rp they can be rejected.

Gee. Makes me think about Tribunal Healers. What? They can be aggressive because of their affiliation? Affiliation comes before RP? I never thought I'd say that, but we need a solid set of Healer rules, not just rules that apply to healers who 'aren't in Tribunal'.

You are wrong because a healer is not to be an aggressor.

Period.

Thus, your reasons are wrong. Healers forsake being an aggressor when they CHOOSE to follow that path. It's not tradition, it's the way of a healer.

And if the IMPs say it's not open for debate, it's not open for debate. Healer RP is one of the few bedrock solid, set in stone RP ultimatums in this game. It would be the same as a druid deciding to go kill trees.

For the powers they've been giving which no other class has, they forsake aggression toward the living.

EDIT: In fact, I'll put this another way. You can debate healer RP until you all are blue in the face and your fingers bruise from typing. If we, the IMPs, state that healer RP and its limitations are set in stone, that is reality, and all the debate in the world doesn't change that. So debate away.

We have a solid set, it's stated in the first line of the quote. If there are a bunch of undead criminals, or undead in an opposing cabal then....no problem. Wait, until a non-undead comes along and takes your standard. I don't know, I know I'll never put myself into such a position, I have a rough enough time as it is.

They're so solid, Healers are allowed to be aggressive in Tribunal to capture a criminal.

Look, I hold nothing against Tribunal, I never have, and I NEVER will. EVER. I love Tribunal with a passion, and I always will. But when I see something like

" You are wrong because a healer is not to be an aggressor. "

and see healers get outcasted because of it, and then watch a couple healers in Tribunal (yes, only been three so far that I know of, and two still in Tribunal) go completely aggressive against a criminal.

But then again, in that case, affiliation comes before general healer RP -and- rules. Well, should Knight affiliation come before general RP -and- rules too, since they were created by the royal houses? Shouldn't Savant affiliation come before general RP -and- rules as well, since their life is dedicated to magic, and the use thereof?

I'm just confused, and trying to get a point across that it's bias in so many ways it makes my head hurt.

This crap about healers has got to stop. Every three months it comes up again, and it's getting ridiculous. They're not getting changed, as Chayesh has said, so if you don't like them the way they are, or refuse to play them the way every helpfile written about them says they're supposed to be played, roll up something else.

I am too, and I don't even play healers......hehe

I can actually understand healers in Tribunal because they would likely be going for a Council position and not be chasing criminals as their primary function(writing laws, politicing and such would be primary) and that's the way I'd handle my trib healer if I wanted to try one, but the roll call would have a big fat 0 beside my name. Then again, how could a healer be in a cabal with a vamp? Whole nother topic that already been discussed I think.

Nevermind. So, damn, stubborn. Try to have a debate, and all I hear is: STFU. Yeah, so much for Ideas and Suggests / a debate. Thanks everyone.

While I do agree that cabals present a definite conundrum to a healer's RP, many have done it and made it work.

Additionally, just as it's a players choice to join a cabal the same that it was their choice to become a healer. The onus is on the healer to make it work within the bounds of the RP guidelines for healers, not on the IMMs to make a way for them to be aggressive or for the IMMs to bend the rules for to accomodate the healer's interpretation of the rules.

Like I said before, there are very few limitations (as few as possible actually) on RP but one of them is healers not being aggressive. Like I mentioned before, it would be like druids killing trees. It's against their sworn nature. You choose to do it, but don't act surprised to find IMMs riding your *** for going against it.

I would never want to see an aggro healer not get oucast.

Healers are not aggro.

An aggro healer would be way way way way overpowered.

However, I think rather than ignore the problem by saying "Just do it!" we should do something about it, maybe give healers more to do...

I have presented a lot of ideas about healers since I've been here.

I suggested giving them mercy and letting them mercy their opponents who get in their way, so the person has something to fear, but the healer isn't a murderer.

I suggested making res have more of an affect again, so that healers would once again serve more of a game mechanic.

I have suggested before letting healers battle necromancers for the souls of their zombies, hunting down and killing the undead zombies (not the necro themselves) and reviving the soul. This idea was coupled with an idea of letting necros reinforce the strength of their zombies with the souls of PCs, so when killing a zombie, souls were left behind.

I have suggested before allowing healers to perform exorcisms on demons, not killing them, but banishing the evil from them.

Is there any chance of any change being made to healers? I think its obvious from the recent events that there are a few problems.

The problems aren't in game mechanics or skills or anything, it's we the players that are not doing right. Well, I don't know about the res changes and how that affects them so I might be a little off with my statement.

Of course.

I have had, in the last year, two healers outcast.

Bad for my track record.

Both were entirely my fault.

However, looking around, I see alot of other outcast healers, so I begin thinking, "Why are there so many?"

And, that's when I realize, healers have become less and less needed by the game because of changes to mechanics.

So, I suggest something that would give them something to do so they don't feel that itch to be aggro, because they've spent the last three weeks getting -600 ac, -100 svs across, and they can't do anything with them, so they get bored...and sit there. No one wants a res anymore. No one in their right mind is going to attack them.

So, I made suggestions of things for them to do.